The Miliband-Blair war of words is a preview of bigger battles to come

If Labour unity has largely held since the election it is because Miliband has chosen to postpone almost all policy decisions.

Tony Blair's dramatic intervention in the centenary edition of the New Statesman (180 pages, out now) leads several of today's papers (the Independent and the Times have splashed on it), with some of the former prime minister's key allies taking the opportunity to air their own concerns about the party's direction under Ed Miliband. The increasingly outspoken Peter Mandelson tells the Independent: "Tony is saying what he has always thought – that the old dividing lines between the uncaring Conservative cuts and Labour spending has got to be redrawn for new times.

"I suspect the two Eds realise this. Their call for One Nation is the right starting point, but there are major structural challenges and choices facing Britain and Labour must consider the difficult changes and reforms needed to address them."

Alan Milburn, Blair's former health secretary, adds: "The closer the election comes, people will stop asking Labour what it is against. They will want to know what Labour is for and what, if elected, it would do. Tony Blair is right to argue that the sooner that process begins in earnest, the better."

One suspects that Miliband, who wasted no time in shrugging off Blair's warning not to "tack left on tax and spending", will be unfazed by their words. Both Mandelson and Milburn are no longer MPs, of course, and have little sway over today's Parliamentary Labour Party. But Blair's intervention and the response to it offers a preview of bigger battles to come. It's often said that Labour is more united now than at any point in recent history but this ignores the fact that there's been little to be disunited about.

Miliband's "blank sheet of paper" is gradually being filled but the Labour leader has chosen to postpone almost all policy decisions until 2014-15. Even when he proposes a new measure such as the reinstatement of the 10p tax rate, or the introduction of a "mansion tax", Miliband is careful to emphasise that these are examples of what Labour would be doing were it in power now, not manifesto commitments. The same applies to the party's five point plan for jobs and growth, the 50p tax rate, benefits uprating and just about every policy area Miliband has touched on since becoming leader.

But at some point before the election, he will need to decide where he really stands. Will Labour, for instance, pledge to stick to the coalition's spending limits for the early years of the new parliament (as Labour did with the Tories' in 1997) our outline its own alternative plan? What will the balance of tax rises to spending cuts be? Will he propose cuts to the welfare budget or allow the burden to fall entirely on public services? Will he pledge to keep Michael Gove's "free schools"? How far will he go in reversing the coalition's NHS reforms? Will he retain the £26,000 benefit cap? 

Liberated from office, Blair enjoys the luxury of posing questions without answering them (although NS editor Jason Cowley has a go in today's Times) but Miliband does not. And once he begins to set out his stall, Labour unity could quickly begin to fray. Recall the tumult that followed Ed Balls's declaration of support for the public sector pay freeze and Labour's decision to abstain on the workfare bill (a move that prompted a rebellion by 44 backbenchers). As one Labour MP recently told me, a pledge to make further cuts to public spending (as the party will surely do) would make such rows "look like a tea party". For this reason, among others, David Cameron and George Osborne will continue to appear unreasonably cheerful. Most of their tough decisions are behind them; Labour’s are all still to come.

Tony Blair talks with Ed Miliband during a Loyal Address service to mark the Queen's Diamond Jubilee at Westminster Hall. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: ASA
Show Hide image

Harmful gender stereotypes in ads have real impact – so we're challenging them

The ASA must make sure future generations don't recoil at our commercials.

July’s been quite the month for gender in the news. From Jodie Whittaker’s casting in Doctor Who, to trains “so simple even women can drive them”, to how much the Beeb pays its female talent, gender issues have dominated. 

You might think it was an appropriate time for the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to launch our own contribution to the debate, Depictions, Perceptions and Harm: a report on gender stereotypes in advertising, the result of more than a year’s careful scrutiny of the evidence base.

Our report makes the case that, while most ads (and the businesses behind them) are getting it right when it comes to avoiding damaging gender stereotypes, the evidence suggests that some could do with reigning it in a little. Specifically, it argues that some ads can contribute to real world harms in the way they portray gender roles and characteristics.

We’re not talking here about ads that show a woman doing the cleaning or a man the DIY. It would be most odd if advertisers couldn’t depict a woman doing the family shop or a man mowing the lawn. Ads cannot be divorced from reality.

What we’re talking about is ads that go significantly further by, for example, suggesting through their content and context that it’s a mum’s sole duty to tidy up after her family, who’ve just trashed the house. Or that an activity or career is inappropriate for a girl because it’s the preserve of men. Or that boys are not “proper” boys if they’re not strong and stoical. Or that men are hopeless at simple parental or household tasks because they’re, well...men.

Advertising is only a small contributor to gender stereotyping, but a contributor it is. And there’s ever greater recognition of the harms that can result from gender stereotyping. Put simply, gender stereotypes can lead us to have a narrower sense of ourselves – how we can behave, who we can be, the opportunities we can take, the decisions we can make. And they can lead other people to have a narrower sense of us too. 

That can affect individuals, whatever their gender. It can affect the economy: we have a shortage of engineers in this country, in part, says the UK’s National Academy of Engineering, because many women don’t see it as a career for them. And it can affect our society as a whole.

Many businesses get this already. A few weeks ago, UN Women and Unilever announced the global launch of Unstereotype Alliance, with some of the world’s biggest companies, including Proctor & Gamble, Mars, Diageo, Facebook and Google signing up. Advertising agencies like JWT and UM have very recently published their own research, further shining the spotlight on gender stereotyping in advertising. 

At the ASA, we see our UK work as a complement to an increasingly global response to the issue. And we’re doing it with broad support from the UK advertising industry: the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) – the industry bodies which author the UK Advertising Codes that we administer – have been very closely involved in our work and will now flesh out the standards we need to help advertisers stay on the right side of the line.

Needless to say, our report has attracted a fair amount of comment. And commentators have made some interesting and important arguments. Take my “ads cannot be divorced from reality” point above. Clearly we – the UK advertising regulator - must take into account the way things are, but what should we do if, for example, an ad is reflecting a part of society as it is now, but that part is not fair and equal? 

The ad might simply be mirroring the way things are, but at a time when many people in our society, including through public policy and equality laws, are trying to mould it into something different. If we reign in the more extreme examples, are we being social engineers? Or are we simply taking a small step in redressing the imbalance in a society where the drip, drip, drip of gender stereotyping over many years has, itself, been social engineering. And social engineering which, ironically, has left us with too few engineers.

Read more: Why new rules on gender stereotyping in ads benefit men, too

The report gave news outlets a chance to run plenty of well-known ads from yesteryear. Fairy Liquid, Shake 'n' Vac and some real “even a woman can open it”-type horrors from decades ago. For some, that was an opportunity to make the point that ads really were sexist back then, but everything’s fine on the gender stereotyping front today. That argument shows a real lack of imagination. 

History has not stopped. If we’re looking back at ads of 50 years ago and marvelling at how we thought they were OK back then, despite knowing they were products of their time, won’t our children and grandchildren be doing exactly the same thing in 50 years’ time? What “norms” now will seem antiquated and unpleasant in the future? We think the evidence points to some portrayals of gender roles and characteristics being precisely such norms, excused by some today on the basis that that’s just the way it is.

Our report signals that change is coming. CAP will now work on the standards so we can pin down the rules and official guidance. We don’t want to catch advertisers out, so we and CAP will work hard to provide as much advice and training as we can, so they can get their ads right in the first place. And from next year, we at the ASA will make sure those standards are followed, taking care that our regulation is balanced and wholly respectful of the public’s desire to continue to see creative ads that are relevant, entertaining and informative. 

You won’t see a sea-change in the ads that appear, but we hope to smooth some of the rougher edges. This is a small but important step in making sure modern society is better represented in ads.

Guy Parker is CEO of the ASA